This is my first conference with the announcement of our results. I joined PGE Polska Grupa Energetyczna Management Board in June, so that was still the second quarter of this year. The name of my job, Vice President for Market Operations, probably requires some explanation, because it also includes responsibility for investment, in particular transformation projects. So I would like to take this opportunity today to present you with the market and operating context. That's on the one hand, and on the other hand, I would like to spend a while discussing our progress in key investment areas. Key, that is from the perspective of Polska Grupa Energetyczna, and key from the perspective of Polish economy. As regards energy market, in the second quarter, similarly to what happened in the first quarter, 2024, we had an increase in energy consumption. We recorded about 3% higher consumption of energy, which translated to about 1 TWh in volume. That was driven by the low base, which was characterized by a slightly lower pace of development of the entire economy, which in turn was propelled by higher prices of raw materials, and the effect of the war in Ukraine was even more visible in the commodities prices. What we noted in the second quarter, 2024, was a change in the coverage structure, in the demand structure. We see a higher share of domestic generation by about 5%. regards to the structure of our generation, in the second quarter of 2024, we recorded 30% higher generation from wind energy. That is 1.1 TWh higher. Secondly, we also see great installed capacity in photovoltaics, about 20 GW installed capacity there. As a result, in the second quarter, generation from those renewable sources was about 2.7% higher than last year. This, in turn, translated into pushing out of merit production from the most expensive power plants fueled by coal in a European perspective. Here, generation was 6% lower than last year. The remaining part of conventional generation, that is lignite, where we noted 7% higher generation. This was mainly driven by lower generation from gas units. We also noted a decreasing net imports. The decrease was by 1 TWh, and on balance, we maintained our position of net importer with a volume of about 0.7 TWh. That is it as regards volume perspective, and in terms of prices, that will be shown in the following slide. One more, forward. That's the one. In terms of the forward market, we are now in a period of relative stability, something that cannot be said of the spot market. As probably all of you have noted, the second quarter was characterized by negative prices in the market. As regards forward contracts with deliveries for the following year, a sideways trend with prices ranging PLN 425 to 500 per megawatt-hour. Currently, we are talking about PLN 450 per megawatt-hour. As regards prices for raw materials, what was key was natural gas price decreases. And as regards to CO2 rights, in the second quarter, the prices ranged from EUR 80 to 97 per ton. And in 2024, we see a significant volatility here. In February, the prices were at about EUR 25.55 per ton. Today, it's about EUR 70 per ton. As for the second part of my remit within the capital group, is investments, in particular strategic investments. A lot is happening here. Our expenditures, our CapEx, in the second quarter of 2024 amounted to over PLN 2.6 billion. The details of those amounts were presented by Mr. Jastrzębski. And I would like to draw your attention to our key areas of investments and what has been happening there. First of all, development of offshore wind farms. As we update you regularly, you probably know that offshore wind farms are an absolute priority for us in long-term development. Baltica 2, there's been a lot of activity here. We are now in intense talks with financial institutions, and we expect this year to see the closure of funding and the project finance model, and secondly, the final investment decision. Probably, on that occasion, you had some dedicated conferences at which we gave you more details about this project. We deeply believe that Baltica 2 will offer the first electricity in the second quarter, 2027. In the meantime, we intend to bring about finalization of our port in Ustka. Ustka is going to be our base for operations and maintenance. In August, we announced a tender for the general contractor of this base, and by the end of this year, we hope to sign the contract for the completion of this project, and complete the project by the end of 2026. As far as the other contract projects are concerned, we have Baltica 3, like we communicated with our partner, and we are now discussing about the reconfiguration of this project. Baltica 1, we have signed a contract with Energoprojekt- Katowice about the design of the project, and this is, of course, in line with our choice of technology for power supply and production, and we are also in contact with some consulting agencies. Now, this is all about offshore wind farms. We might be going on for a long time about them, about our plans, our projects, but I hope that the next month and years will be a period of a lot of activities in this field, and I hope that we will be able to give you more news on a daily, current basis. Renewables now. First of all, we have signed the protocol for Jeziórko Farm, 100 megawatt peak installed power, but also there is a very intensive development in another field that is important for us, and even key for us in terms of land projects, so this is energy storage. First of all, we have now a tender for the Żarnowiec energy storage. We don't know if this is the largest project in Poland or whether we are going to be the first in Europe even, but this is a project of a huge scale, 263 MW and 900 MWh of capacity. We have also started a procedure for 26 smaller storage, in total 107 MW, so two hours each, 214 MW of capacity. And here, just like in the case of offshore farms, we hope to be able to use financing from our Plan for Growth and Development plan from the European Fund. Now, we also have a project for power plants using pumping mechanism operations, and we know that we have the second one in Poland that is being modernized. We are modernizing the upper basin, and we will now be going on to the second part of this project, so modernization of four blocks. This is a huge investment, as you probably remember. It's PLN 1.3 billion. In terms of heating now, we are going towards decarbonization. In particular, we have a very complex decarbonization project in Bydgoszcz, in Gdynia, and Rzeszów. In Kielce, we have now a block, gas block, that is in operations, and also five water boilers have been built. In Rzeszów also, we are recovering energy, and we hope to be done next year. After having, after full exploitation of the gas boilers, after they are in full swing, we can switch off the coal boilers. We're also thinking about the heat pump construction. We've communicated about this last week, and we communicated about a letter of intent for this investment. Now, Czechowice, another project that is now in the phase of warm up, let's say. We had the synchronization of both turbines with the grid, and we are now starting the final negotiations with the general contractor. They do have some demands connected to deadlines and connected to finances. This is now being dealt with by Prokuratoria Generalna, and I think this is going to be finalized by the end of the year. Now, gas investment, something we'll go back to Gryfino. Now we have Unit 9 that has been commissioned. It works very well. We are very happy with this investment. In terms of the first block, the second block, Unit 10 gas unit, according to the settlement we've signed with the contractor, the deadline for commissioning it is September thirtieth. And the second biggest investment in terms of gas-fired generation, where we are following the deadlines, so we are on time. We are currently building the foundations, and our subcontractors are currently signing the contracts for subcontracting activities for the main components of this power plant. And the last domain that takes a lot of our investment budget, so from the PLN 2.6 billion, namely PLN 1.1 billion, that was spent on distribution segments. It's not only about our distribution company, but in this business line, we also spend money on energy services connected to the railway activity. PGE Distribution is a dedicated company which deals with meters. As you know, we are currently discussing about dynamic meters and the possibility of implementing those that can be read remotely. We are almost at 500,000, and by 2030, there will be 6 million of these. We are also modernizing our stations. This is high voltage stations, and this is also very important because we have decided to go into the effective program, and we have signed a contract for modernization of some of those stations, and we have 61 of such installations ready. We also are supported with some European funds, like climate and environment. PGE Distribution has received approval for PLN 337 million, and at the end of June, we concluded a contract for credit from PLN 1 billion from the European Investment Bank, and this is going to be used for the railway network. I think there might be questions regarding our transformation activities. Both in terms of our investment activities and transformation activities, we are in regular dialogue with the regulatory authorities, with government administration, because first of all, we want to make sure that stability of the power supply is guaranteed. That is clear to us. We know what our role is, and we know how extremely responsible this role is within the national power grid. Additionally, in all those investment activities and projects, we take into account social dialogue, consultations with the public. We take care of relations with our employees, as well as placing very high on the list of our priorities, the dialogue with local communities, local administration, and this local perspective. So our transformation plans are definitely embedded within the concept of fair, equitable transformation. Each time we approach such projects in a comprehensive manner, and we understand the need to address the needs of local communities. So it seems to us that 2024 and 2025 will be marked by very intense talks and dialogue in this regard. That's it regards market investment operating context, and we can move on to the second part of our presentation now. Thank you very much. I give the floor to Przemysław Jastrzębski, Vice President for Finance. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I can boast even shorter tenure in the group than my colleague, because I've been in office since fifteenth of July. Nevertheless, I will do my best to talk you through the details of our financial results in the second quarter. When we presented the results for the first quarter, we talked about good results that were under the pressure of conventional energy. In the second half, that is still visible. Although temporarily, this impact is lower, thanks to the operation of balancing capacity market. Diversified structure, which allows us to keep stability of consolidated results, was definitely in favor of the group. But we experienced volatility in operating results after the first six months. Generation is comparable to what we had in 2023, yet we see the impact of the launch of Gryfino unit. We recorded a decrease in the retail sales in the second quarter. It is even more visible because in the base period, we were supported with Railway Energy. Thanks to our diversified structure and operation throughout the energy value chain, Moody's maintained PGE rating at an unchanged high level, Baa1, with a stable perspective. Importantly, the agency points out the risks related to the lack of clarity as to further functioning of coal assets, and this undoubtedly will be a point to consider by the agency while it prepares the next rating. Obviously, the ratings are important because they translate directly into the cost of our funding, external financing, and in the scale of our multibillion investments, we can talk about the impact of hundreds of millions. If we look now at the details of the second quarter, sales volumes in the second quarter, in production units, increase in energy generation at 5% year-on-year. That was mainly due to higher consumption of energy and decrease in imports. Higher generation was noted in lignite power plants, increased by 0.7 TWh, that is more or less 10%. This increase results from high utilization by PSE of Bełchatów units. Additionally, we had slightly shorter times of renovation of Turów units. As for gas units in Gryfino, they generated 0.41 TWh of energy as part of the investment process. Lower generation in heat and power plants fueled by gas and coal, with a decrease of 30% altogether. That is a result of lower generation in conjunction with heat due to weather conditions. The temperatures were higher and hence the effect. Generation in coal power plants was at a similar level. In the second quarter, the group recorded 1% growth in the volume of distributed energy, mainly owing to high consumption of energy in the A Tariff, that is about 6% up, and in B Tariff, about 2% up. Sales to end users in the analyzed quarter down by 8%, 0.7 TWh. As a result of a decrease in volume and in tariffs for big business, those customers are more inclined to diversify their energy sources with a greater share of Renewable Energy sources and there was also a lower consumption of energy by customers. Heat sales decreased by 21%, mainly on account of weather conditions, that is higher temperatures than average. Key factors that contributed to our operating result in the second quarter. In general, recurring EBITDA in the second quarter was PLN 2 billion 300 million and was higher by PLN 554 million, that is 9% up compared to last year. The year-on-year change was affected by the decrease in the revenues from energy by PLN 2.9 billion. There was also the negative contribution of lower prices of energy. These dropped to 567 PLN per megawatt- hour. That is 260 PLN down. Slightly or partially offset by higher volume of sales by 1.5 terawatt hour, up to 12.7 TWh, due to high energy consumption in the country, and lower imports. No right to the fund for contributions on differences in prices, and this was affected by lower by 0.5 billion costs of CO2, with a lower volume of emissions. Mainly as a result of higher generation on lignite, lower cost of fuels and other materials by PLN 0.8 billion, mainly owing to higher price of coal and lower volume of utilization of coal. And a lower by 0.2 terawatt-hour generation on this fuel. Lower prices of natural gas. Here, we recorded a decrease in prices. And in the last period, we recorded a higher result on energy sales to final users, PLN 600 million up, which resulted from lower costs of balancing of our portfolio. Loss on sales to individual users reduced the result for 2023. And in the second quarter 2024, higher margin on distribution service by about PLN 220 million. That was the effect of lower costs of energy buying to cover the balance difference. Margin on energy and distribution services in railway energy, 333 higher by 15 million compared to the base period. In the second quarter this year, we recorded lower revenues from sale of services in the energy prices, that is capacity market and regulatory system services, which decreased in total by about PLN 300 million. Personnel costs are up by PLN 151 million. That's the results taking into account collective bargaining agreements. Others, we have a positive effect, mainly of the result for fuel sales and also reserves that were dissolved, and this was PLN 198 million. In terms of some single events, EBITDA is reduced by PLN 299 million. These are some random single events, and in a comparative per-period, we had plus PLN 415 million. This is mainly due to the recultivation reserve, so this was a negative, while in the previous year, in the same quarter, we had a positive impact. To sum up, the EBITDA that we report in the second quarter was PLN 2.6 billion, and was higher than the reported for the second quarter of 2023 by PLN 159 million. The net profit was PLN 1.138 billion, so PLN 700 million more. That is 16%, because in a comparable period last year, it was PLN 360 million. Okay, so now we are tackling investment expenditures. These are expenditures in the second quarter of 2024. We have investment outlays that went up at PLN 280 million, 11%, and this is due to renewables, mainly. These are the tasks that were connected to the construction of offshore farms and the photovoltaic program, and also modernization of Dębe P ower Station and the pumped-storage hydroelectricity. We also have a higher expenditures in distribution. This means that we connected additional units to our distribution group, and we also have modernization program and a program connected with meters. We also have more expenditure in the heating sector. Here, the expenditures were mainly about the construction of the second line of our waste treatment and recovery plant, and also construction of cables and measuring devices and networks in our units, but also other elements connected to decarbonization. We also had slightly higher expenditures in conventional energy, but this is more about maintenance. We had less expenditures in railway, and this was mainly connected to the modernization of supply unit and also the construction of railway lines. We spent less on gas projects, and this is mainly due to the schedule that we have adopted for these projects, and this is about the construction of gas blocks in Dolna Odra Power Plant, so the schedule it's scheduled by 2050. We also have steam and gas units in Rybnik. The next slide, please. In terms of the net debt in the current period, by the end of June 2024, the debt amounted to almost PLN 10 billion. It's PLN 9.99 exactly. In taking in consideration the future spendings and emissions. In this approach, the factor of debt to EBITDA is 2.15. This is the ratio of net to EBITDA. Due to the prolongation of the CO2 period settlement, we will be flattening the level of indebtedness quarterly. Because you see that in the past, we've had quite a lot of volatility here. What is important is that economic indebtedness is not, I mean, it's not taken into consideration, it's reasoning, it's not, it doesn't impact the covenant levels. The main impact on the net debt was the recurring EBITDA from the first half year. Also, the investment outlays that were at a level of PLN 4.7 billion, and the reserve for CO2 minus the current CO2 expenditures, PLN 0.2 billion. The main elements that impact our income in the second quarter was the repeatable EBITDA at the level of PLN 2.3 billion, investment outlays PLN 2.6 billion, and the reserve for CO2 minus current expenditures; this is PLN 4.4 billion. Thank you. The outlook for EBITDA for 2024, we see here some modification compared to the first quarter. The expected results of the energy segment, in particular, it concerns renewables. At that time, we were forecasting a certain result year- on- year, and now we expect an increase here. In the other segments, the trends remained unchanged. In 2024, we expect a decrease of EBITDA in the generation, so both conventional generation heating, and this is due to a significant decrease of the prices of energy. We do not expect any favorable price situation on the market that would impact the intersystem exchange. In terms of renewables, we have already tackled this subject, but we expect a better result than in 2023, mainly to the increased installed power of wind farm, photovoltaic farm, and also due to the flows of energy, due to the legislative changes that were implemented in June. Now, turnover, we expect a better result, especially due to the fact that we have a reserve for our loss in Tariff G. That was negative in 2023, but we also there are some regulations planned concerning Tariff G in the second half year of this year that can impact. In distribution, we have higher effectivity due to the signing of the charter and a more effective approach to our investment program. Just a few words about something about the railway energy segment. Our expectations in this field are rather negative due to lower revenues from the connection rates, connection fees. Actually, this is due to a higher base in 2023, because at that time, there was a cumulation of all the connection power points that had been commissioned. Therefore, we had expected a higher result. Thank you. This is all on my side. Now we will probably move to the Q&A session. Yes, as if you allow me, let's traditionally start with the questions coming from those who are not present here in person, and who send their questions by email. I have selected three questions, probably one for each of our management board members. The vice president for finance: Is it possible to have further write-offs from of receivables from PKP Cargo? The receivables from PKP Cargo at the end of the first half year amounted to PLN 206 million. At the end of June, Renewable Energy established a provision for overdue receivables from PKP Cargo, and interest notes for the total amount of PLN 143 million. It seems well, and we expect that any possible further impairment write-offs will be, to a large extent, limited. In line with our arrangement with PKP Cargo, we applied a mutual offset of receivables and payables within the group. For example, regarding receivables for, or the services of PGE and payment for transport work to our partner companies. As of now, in view of the fact that a sanation procedure regarding PKP Cargo is underway, current payables are paid regularly, that is a legal requirement of this procedure being conducted. You talked a lot about offshore investments, so I have a question related to this: What projects of offshore wind farms do you plan to put out in the auction in 2025? What is your assessment of the maximum price included in the draft resolution of the Ministry of Climate and Environment? I think this question was asked in a variety of ways over the past several weeks. We have a quite clear position on this, and it was confirmed by the Ministry of State Assets in the comments that were forwarded to the Ministry of Climate and Environment regarding prices for 2025. I think any discussion on what projects we will want to present at this auction needs to be preceded by a dialogue about the amount of this maximum price. That is, this price determines a lot of decisions to be made, not only by ourselves, but also by other market players. We are clear and communicated that, in communicating that at this price, the risk of the auction not taking place at all is significant. We have seen that such situations as auction not being held at all took place. That happened in the UK, in Lithuania, so we present very constructive arguments why the price should be higher. And these are arguments which relate to both our recent experiences in the Baltica 2 project, that is, matters related to the costs of functioning of offshore wind farms both unit costs of balancing and the number of negative hours that started coming up in the market in recent months. And we think that in the case of building offshore wind farms, in the first phase, they will reach higher levels than those today. Thirdly, that is a question of CapEx. Capital expenditures are estimated by the Minister of Climate for setting of this price, and I think the increases that we have seen in recent years in the market have not been fully reflected. I'm talking about the increases in the market of supplies of key components. The offshore market has become very popular, not only in Poland. We can see that this technology has become extremely important to investors who are both incumbents, who were previously traditional players of the market, and to new investors, both from the industry and financial investors worldwide. We are talking about the activity in Europe, but also major activity in the U.S. and Asia. This resulted in significant inflation of prices of key components. An update of the data regarding contracting of the key components for the turn of the 2020's and 2030's was not fully reflected in our assessment and the calculation of the price by the Minister of Climate. Therefore, we hope that the arguments which we presented in a very consistent and systematic manner will allow an increase of the originally proposed price. As regards offshore, we emphasize heavily that the number of projects we will be able to offer and the specific projects which might be likely to win in the auction will translate into the possibility of developing local content. Why is that the case? Local content is not built for a single project. Local content, of course, participates in the completion of individual projects carried out in the Polish part of the basin of the Baltic Sea. But this content is the effect achieved throughout the life cycle of offshore wind projects. So it is not just the construction, but also later operation of those offshore farms. And that is something that happens over the horizon of 30 years. We stress the fact that in the cycle of offshore wind farms development, and let's remember that Poland is still at a very early stage because we have not built a single one yet. If we want to consider building offshore wind farms, we need to do so in a determined sequence. We cannot afford to have any investment gaps. A possible failure to hold an auction in 2025 might pose this risk of such a hole appearing. Why? Because the supply chain is extremely competitive. Today we are saying, first of all, let's think about our purpose. The purpose is to build a very robust offshore in Poland. In order to do so, we need to think in long-term perspective, and we need to take into account the sequence of events, which allows those farms to be built in a stable schedule without any gaps in investing. To allow this to happen, the projects from the second phase need to have the possibility, the conditions for making economically justified decisions. This volume of additional 400,000 megawatts to be considered in the auction 2025 will be feasible on condition that the price is increased. Let's require answer to a short question, but I think this is something we must be very open about, and we stress this before starting a discussion about the future projects that we will be able to offer in the auctions. Because we are not thinking about only the auctions of 2025, but also about the auction round of 2027. And our intention here is to address as much as possible the investment decisions for all the projects that will allow us to, for instance, build artificial islands. Why do we do this? First of all, to decarbonize our company, PGE. This is our objective, our ambition, but also we keep repeating one thing, what we see in the second quarter. We've just seen it, the volume of electricity produced, the structure of the production, where land renewables, so wind farms and photovoltaics are now growing, and at the same time, so we have installed power and also some weather-related issues. It's going to eliminate the most expensive sources from the mix. So building every next megawatt of power in renewables that are dependent on the weather will mean that we will be getting rid of the most expensive conventional sources. This is not the objective. Our offshore farms, not only our farms, but all those that are planned in Poland on the Baltic Sea, this is a project that is supposed to lower the prices at the end of the day of electricity. And yesterday in Brussels, we've seen Draghi's, Mario Draghi's report, saying that the competitiveness of the European economy is dead, and that this must come back to the center of our attention. So wind farms and wind generation will also play a role here. This is the bigger picture that we need to have in front of our eyes in PGE. And this is what we want to address in dialogue with stakeholders and decision makers. Thank you very much. And carbon assets have already been mentioned, but another question comes up. The option of having those coal assets cut out for this symbolic PLN 1, for the price of a symbolic PLN 1. Ladies and gentlemen, the previous transaction that did not close was for a slightly higher amount, but the symbolic PLN 1 should be understood as an equity value valuation, and the enterprise value must be properly higher for the PLN 1 to work. I don't know if my colleague would like to add something. Well, without giving you the context, it's difficult to answer this question. It's too complex to just say yes or no, so singling out the coal assets does have a historical context to it. I think we should now remember the NABE project that was done in the past. This is not going to go down in history because it hasn't happened, but I think we need to open a new chapter in our dialogue with the public administration, with the grid operator, and with the regulator, to define what types of assets might be singled out from PGE and from other energy companies, and in which way, according to which schedule. Let's first think about why this is done, because we do have a certain perspective, and we would like to look at the world through our eyes, but it is not the case. Not everyone does. We know that we need to have someone to talk to, and now we have the Ministry of Industry, of National Assets, all them are our stakeholders, and we need to discuss with them. This is not a discussion about the transaction price with those interlocutors. This is about the structure. This is a transformative approach. We are fully aware of the fact that this is a transformative project that is supposed to impact the next 10 or 15 years. Before we sit down with our interlocutors and we start discussing the price and the structure of the assets, we first have to do our homework. We have to look back and to discuss in a responsible manner with our stakeholders, the transformation of the energy structure of the energy system based on hard coal and coal in general, because the sheer change of ownership is the first step. So the new owner must have a clear view of what is going to happen with those assets. Since we are a responsible participant to this dialogue, and since historically, we've been an owner of those assets for a long time, these assets are called GiEK in our structure. So this is the conventional mining and coal resources. We are trying to be responsible in addressing the issue of singling them out, and in the second step, we will be discussing the price issue. Like Piotr said, in the case of conventional assets, we are indeed discussing the question of debt, but we also have some operational gap to keep in mind. Like we've seen now, these assets generate a negative EBITDA now, so it's not some kind of a hot potato that we want to throw to someone. Sorry for being so colloquial, but this is a good illustration of what is happening. So we would like first to work on a transformation of those assets so that this is in the good interest, not only of our company, but also in the interest of the national energy generation system. It is also going to take into consideration social interests and the interests of the impacted communities. We all read the media, the newspapers. We hear what is happening around. So in Gryfino, among others. I am deeply touched as a member of the management board of PGE, because we are really being very diligent in preparing our plans, and we are also paying attention to the way in which they are implemented. Thank you very much. Now, I open the room for questions. Just please make sure that you speak to the microphone so that people who are online can follow us. Rzeczpospolita, Parkiet, I have three questions for the time being, at least. At the previous conference, Mr. Maciej talked about your activities regarding analysis that was being done by PwC, commissioned by PGE, on the model of carving out coal assets. If I remember correctly, the date of the end of August was mentioned as the time for presenting outcomes of those studies. Could we find out what these outcomes were, or when PwC is going to present them? Also, I would like to ask you about activities related to changes in the capacity market. I know that there are talks with the regulator regarding the new shape of the capacity market, and PSE would like the companies to present new plans of gas investments on top of those that are already in progress, of which we are already aware. Do you have any gas projects in the pipeline or any cogeneration projects that you could present to PSE, and that could satisfy the operator in terms of increasing the availability of capacity? And Mr. Jastrzębski also talked about balancing market with the additional revenues coming from this. So I would like to ask whether you could give us any number regarding the amount of revenues from the reform of the balancing market after 14th of June. Let me start with the first, third question, and I will leave the first two to Mr. Górski. Revenues is not the information that we want to give to the public right now. In the second quarter, it was immaterial. It started in the 14th of June, so the amounts were really insignificant. For sure, in the third quarter, that will be visible in the conventional energy market. So you will see the level of EBITDA with, for certain, a significant impact from those revenues that, to a large extent, effectively constitute the EBITDA with very little own cost. So positive impact on the conventional segment, yes, and also in Renewable Energy, as Mr. Jastrzębski pointed out, we changed our perspective between the second and third quarter. We talked about two aspects here, increasing capacity in the wind and PV, and also revenues from this market, which are achieved and utilized by Renewable Energy. I would also like to add that the impact will not be significant enough to materially increase the profitability of the conventional energy segment, so you should not expect any reversal of the situation. Of course, the trend remains unchanged. That was mentioned during our presentation. Flexibility is probably not very fashionable or omnipresent yet. But probably it will be soon. We are very happy that we were very well prepared for what happened. We were probably the best prepared in the market. That results from us holding the assets that can actively participate in the provision of services in the balancing market. But also, we were prepared by having appropriate analytical tools that allowed us to successfully participate in this market from the very first day of its operation. And as my colleagues have pointed out, the third quarter will show those results translated into hard data. Just one word of comment. That explains our much greater interest in the investment in energy storage, not only electrochemical storage facilities, which are now at the stage of procurement procedures, but also whenever possible, we try to revisit potential projects of heat pump power plants. Whenever possible, we analyze any other ideas related to increasing capacity and those plans, and increasing capacity in these facilities. I think the effect of the balancing market reform on the price of energy also contributes to our thinking and rethinking of our attitude to the structure of installed capacity and renewable energies. In particular, that relates to our ambitions in the PV and our expectations as to the economic returns from those projects. We will probably revise down our ambitions in PV capacity. Cheap hours became even cheaper, expensive hours became even more expensive. So what we saw in the second quarter was a very demanding situation at weekends with strong winds and a lot of sunshine. While we have strong feelings for water on offshore wind farms, land wind farms. In photovoltaics, we strive to be more demanding towards ourselves, and we are more selective in our approach to projects and this technology. Watching with great interest projects that are being carried out in the tracker technology, or combining photovoltaics, wind and energy storage. The first question that you ask, that is collaboration with PwC and carving out coal assets. That topic is more complex than we might think. We were unable to use what was prepared in the process for the National Energy Security Agency, so we are starting from scratch, in fact. PwC is working very intensely. We extended the deadline for the completion of this analytical stage. This is a very interactive dialogue that we are having. We have PSE, we have Polish Power Grid, we have Ministry of State Assets involved in this, and we hope that in the third quarter, we will be able to develop some general directions for our concepts, and in the fourth quarter, we plan to go deeper and flesh out those general concepts, consulting them with stakeholders from the government, administration, and the transmission network operator, because these are the key stakeholders in this context. So I think we will see the outcomes of this work in the fourth quarter. That is also the time when we will be able to start communicating them. First of all, we will communicate this to the government administration and PSE. Secondly, we will communicate that to our stakeholders, including social partners. And thirdly, we will communicate it publicly to keep the right sequence of communication. We believe that this is a fair approach to the topic. That's it. Your second question was about gas. It's good that this topic comes up today. Without context, it's hard to talk about any specific plans related to natural gas-powered projects. Unfortunately, we will have to decide whether gas is a transition fuel or whether it will be treated as a target fuel, then how we can bring about this fuel being the target fuel. From our point of view, the plants in Gryfino and Rybnik are the only large-scale projects that we can complete in the foreseeable future. But we intensify our efforts to define new potential projects without yet moving on to the decision-making phase. So for the time being, it is a dialogue that we are having with the Polish power grid, and first, we want to establish the strategic context, how to maintain the economic profitability of this project. Because if gas is to be a transition fuel, and if by 2040, it's going to be very limited in its potential, then we need to consider together with PSE, how we can justify similar investment economically. For gas, what we need to keep in mind is that it's not only power plants, but also the heating generation business. So we should be able to react to PSE's demand in terms of peak power, and we should do this together with our business line, PGE Heating. Because decarbonization is set in the context of new power that should that can also be generated through natural gas. Thank you very much. I see we have another question on the other side of the room. Thank you. Michał Kozak, and I have two questions. One is long, the other is short. The first one concerns coal. Does the European Commission have to agree to the additional coal auctions until twenty twenty-eight? And if you get this approval, the government might stop work on separating carbon assets. And what would happen if this separation did not work? Because we know we see the preparations to the work, we see in the offshore sector that a lot can be done without emissions, with green bonds. What about conventional power generation? I mean, we have those blocks that are phased out, and why should this happen in this way, according to you? I am willing to answer the second question. Okay, I will try to answer right now, and I will give you some more information about this topic. One of the main reasons why this separation of assets is important from our point of view is the following: PGE, as of now, is being treated like the owner of emission rights, and this is a huge problem when discussing with financial institutions because they find it more and more difficult to offer us some good conditions for debt financing in the long term. One might imagine the following: someone suddenly decides to finance carbon assets and to work with us on them. But the reality is different. They have global some global values, some global conditions, and even if those groups think that we are an interesting local partner, but they are willing to start talking to us once we get rid of those carbon assets, once they are cut out from our main body. So we hear what they are saying, of course, and we translate that into what is happening now. Let's look at offshore wind farms. Here we have the project finance approach. Getting debt is much easier here because financial institutions are interested in participating in Baltica 2. The project is constructed in such a manner that our 50%. And this project will be financed using the project finance approach, and the financing institutions are very happy to finance this debt. This is clean, zero emission, this is long-term, so that's great. Now, we have also to add some equity to this project, even if it is supposed to be financed in a 70/30 ratio, so a market ratio. The 30% in the context of, for instance, this transformative project of offshore farming, still the 30% is a huge chunk of money. And, of course, we need to dialogue with the world of finance. The main fears we have, the main concerns we have, is that if we don't manage to solve the issue of carbon assets, so at least separating some of them from us, and if we don't manage to plan a certain schedule for phasing out and for decarbonization, will impact our possibility to acquire equity, equity that is necessary to engage in our investments. Okay, the distribution will be financed because we have PLN 4 billion yearly outlays. EBITDA from this segment allows us to carry on with the investment. All seems fine, but the future project, future-oriented projects, so offshore wind farms, energy storage on land and renewables on land, as well as modernization of the heating industry, so these long-term prospective projects are in jeopardy, and we will have limited possibilities. We won't be able to have enough debt capital, enough international partners, and this is going to impact our investment activity. This is one of the reasons for which we are very clear and adamant about separating our carbon assets. What happens if it doesn't work? Most probably, we will have to review our investment ambitions. Probably, we will have to try to enter into a dialogue with the financing institutions that still are open to working with companies such as ourselves. It may seem. It might seem that Polish banks should want to work with us. Of course, they do want to work with us, but they are fully aware of the fact that the capacity of the Polish banking sector is limited, not because the sector in itself is small, but there are concentration limits. All financial institutions and banks do have those concentration thresholds, and this is what limits our financing capacities. And this, of course, will translate into difficulties in gaining debt financing in the long term. Question without a microphone. I'm sorry, but the question is not asked to the microphone, hence, we cannot translate it. Let me just react. This is possible, but the question is, where do we want to have 100%? So building value for our shareholders is important to us, to the management, and we always think about the domains that in the medium and long term, give us good perspective for investing money, for generating free cash flow, and renewables are one of such domains with a great outlook and with great prospects. If we were to share it with the outside world, probably, first and foremost, we would be considering other sectors. Distribution is key for us, so we always want it to be 100% owners of our distribution. Offshore wind farms are a specific domain. Here, we work with partners. This is a good model. Usually in the world, this is what is done. So this is done in partnership. Renewables, here, the only plus would be to get some extra money. But if this is the only way of financing this investment, then okay, we will do it. However, it seems to us that it would be worthwhile having a decision with the Minister, Ministry of Finance and Ministry of National Assets first to give us more possibility of absorbing finances. Of course, the Ministry might find it tricky to take in those assets, but on the other hand, it's not either very complicated. So this is a procedure that is doable, and if we enter into good, constructive discussion, it is fully possible. Let us go back to this one question that was not yet answered. One simple technical question: What was CapEx on offshore in the first half of the year in PGE? About PLN 500 million. To continue on this, let's talk about conventional energy, because it now generates losses to EBITDA. If we look at 500 million from capacity market, that would be very negative. Now you are showing us that gas units generate loss, like Dolna Odra. Does Dolna Odra have a chance to break even this year or, on an annualized basis, next year, the earliest? And if you didn't set off those coal assets, which units would you have to disconnect? Rybnik, Opole, Gryfino, and what would be the schedule of decommissioning those units? On the one hand, to achieve zero plus EBITDA in the conventional segment, and on the other hand, to not hurt the reserve in the system. So that's my question. And also in the context of whether the capacity market by 2028 is going to help you indeed. There were some ideas to announce auctions for a year, and that's doesn't seem too good for you. Well, let's relate to the comment, which was a bit interrupted earlier. The point regarding setting off coal assets is important because in the market, and we are talking about banking market and investor market, uncertainty is the worst. Lack of decision is the worst possible situation. As of now, we are not saying how this divestment, we prefer to use divestment rather than setting off the assets. Divestment, we do not want to determine how we would like to structure this transaction, but the sooner this decision is made, the easier it will be for us to model and plan future CapEx for all segments and to have an overview of the entire group. As of now, we have a certain project that was discussed by the National Energy Security Agency, and now it is phased out. Talks are being held about how to arrange the divestment. What we want to see is the decision to come as early as possible, regardless of the structure, because when the decision comes, we will be able to talk internally about possibilities of debt financing or equity solutions, as you have mentioned. It is important that the institutions my colleague talked about follow their own standards. We are talking about foreign banks here. And they expect. Well, it is not so that holding coal assets is a deal breaker and something that prevents them from talking to us, but what they need is a very realistic decarbonization process. As of now, we are in suspension, and that's the problem we want to solve as soon as possible in dialogue with all previously mentioned stakeholders. I wouldn't like to get into a discussion about the schedule of phasing out any activities in conventional energy. It's being analyzed or not, that's a very sensitive topic. It is very sensitive, not only in terms of value for shareholders, but also very sensitive from the perspective of the national electroenergy system, and it is very sensitive in terms of our dialogue with the social partners. So we cannot have those talks with one stakeholder without paying attention to the remaining stakeholders. So I want to apologize to you for not answering this question today, but as soon as we have the general direction agreed, based on the analysis that is being carried out with our consultant and talks with our stakeholders, we will present this information to you immediately so that we can have this systematic communication also with the capital market. I understand that you are interested in this matter. Dolna Odra, does it have a chance of breaking even and getting into positive numbers? Let me develop on this. What we have shown is the start-up production of a single unit, 0.4 TWh, so it is basically negligible volume. If we want to analyze profitability of those two units. First of all, they have to be handed over for operation. One was handed over on the first of August, the other is going to be handed over for use in three weeks. So the fourth quarter will be the first moment when we can talk about two units being fully operational, with a capacity market being a very important element that will cover our fixed cost. And when we meet at the conference, at which we will present you the results of the fourth quarter, we will be able to give you some more details. And for sure, after the fourth quarter of 2025, with an entire, accounting and calendar year of functioning of those units, the information will be even more complete. So, what you already have now is not yet enough, for any drawing of conclusions. We had a question here, in the second row. Ireneusz Chojnacki, Wirtualny Nowy Przemysł. I have three short questions. First, I would like to ask what this reconfiguration of Baltica 3 project consists in? What is to be changed there? What is being changed in order to improve the profitability and efficiency of the system? Secondly, when do you plan to hand over for operation the new Czechnica? And the third point, a long time ago, an agreement was signed between PGE and CPK about possible collaboration in building source of energy. Are you planning to complete this kind of project, building a source of energy for power supply for this project? Let me start with Baltica 3. I remember that you attended the press conference that we organized with Ørsted about Baltica 3. So we know the income parameters of Baltica 3, because Baltica 3 is similar to Baltica 2 in terms of planning. In terms of configuration, what can we do there? Well, first, something we are doing now is to do a review of the CapEx that we had foreseen, and the investment outlays that we had foreseen. So here we get a lot of support from our partner, Ørsted, in reviewing those assumptions, and this is happening in dialogue with the suppliers. Unfortunately, this is a very dynamic situation because the prices have gone up compared to what we had foreseen one year, two years ago. So we would like now to have another round of discussions concerning the investments, the CapEx, that is necessary for this project. And the other issue about reconfiguration is about a setup of the project itself. We know very well that offshore wind generation is a sector where every detail matters. We know that, if we reduce the wake effects, that might impact the productivity of this installation, this is going to have a real impact on the return on investment. And we are also trying to draw conclusions from the analysis of Baltica 2, that we are currently running about the maintenance costs, so that's not the operating costs in the future. So it's about improving effectiveness of these spendings. So these are small details, but we try to group them together so that we can improve the economics of this project. The viability of the project. This is done now, this work happens on a current basis or on a continuous basis, and we hope that in the future months, it's not an issue of weeks, it's really an in-depth analysis that is happening now, and we hope to draw conclusions within the next few months. We know that the first phase contracts follow a certain approach. There is a certain support, there is a certain schedule. We still have some time left for the reconfiguration, so I think we will be able to fit within the schedule. Czechnica now, this is the fourth quarter, and now we have started the first synchronization, the first launch, and starting from the end of September and in October, we plan to fully launch this investment, to have a full startup and to finish all the work that is still being done. The third question was about CPK. I think that Director Sudoł will be the proper person to answer. We have signed no contracts. Perhaps, well, in terms of letter of intent, some general arrangement, but we have no contracts, we have no duties, we are not part of any special vehicle company that might have been created. I will not be discussing the issues on the side of CPK, but I'm just speaking on behalf of PGE, a company that was supposed to be in charge of trigeneration, so generation of heat, electricity, and cooling for this central airport. Okay, I see still one person asking for the floor. Rafał Zasuń of Wysokie Napięcie. I have a question about coal. What kind of CapEx will you have to put in the coal stations, the ones that are left? If you decide that they should participate in the auctions in 2026, 2028, and do you want to make those blocks more flexible so that they can also render services to PSE in the new formula? Another question, I've seen 1 Tera less in sales in Group A. This is a very significant decrease. What is the reason for this downturn? Thank you. The decrease in Tariff A, in Group A, this is the big company tariff, and the companies, big companies, are optimizing the contracts that they are willing to sign. So they are simply switching to a more active model of management, and they are going towards the spot market. I think this is the main factor that is responsible for this trend. For the CapEx? Perhaps I will give you the floor, yes. The CapEx, well, you've seen it probably in the presentation. We have significantly limited the CapEx in conventional energy generation. This is PLN 200 million per quarter. This is very little compared to what we used to spend on conventional production. We do not have any analysis that we might show you, and that would tell us what CapEx we would have to have to participate fully in those actions in an effective manner. But what we can say is that we are really trying to make those blocks more flexible. It's the way. It's not only about our approach, it's the way in which those energy blocks are working. I will note down this question, and I'm sure you will also participate in the next press conference, and I hope to be able to give you a more in-depth answer at the next press conference, sir. Okay, one last question. Maciej Samcik, Subiektywnie o Finansach. I would like now go down very down to earth to the problems of the people. What can we do to lower energy prices for regular citizens? I know that the budget, the national budget, does not have a lot of money to do this, but the coalition probably is ready to do it or willing to do it. I know who is your main shareholder. This is not a trap question. This is not a trick question. But when we discussed dynamic tariffs, my readers told me that from their point of view, every attempt at increasing energy prices is hurting their human rights. People have no problems using a Uber app on the basis of dynamic pricing, but they have a problem waiting until the night to switch on their washing machine. This is a question of mentality. But what about your corporate approach? The electricity costs what it costs, so either you will get this money from the people in their bills, from a refunding or from the budget. But would you like the government to keep the cap, to freeze the energy prices until the end of the world? Yes or no? And another question about some of those investments, I cannot find it in the presentation now, but I've seen that for the first two quarters, you have less cash now. So what the business generates, minus the cost, minus investments, minus overheads, we see that it's rather negative. And you said at one point that unless you do something quickly with your carbon assets, you will probably have to review your investment strategy. The question is, when is it likely to happen? I know that the carbon issue is impacting your EBITDA, but also your financing ability, and you have less and less cash. So the question is, when will you have to make savings on your investments? Can you foresee this? Well, it's difficult to give you exactly a point in time. Like, my colleague, Mr. Maciej, also mentioned, the best scenario would be the following: A decision would have to be made about the carbon, the coal issue, the coal separation issue within, let's say, twelve months. Now, the structure of this transaction, separating coal assets, whether it's done and set in stone, and we know the schedule and the whole philosophy, so it's only then that we will be able to make any kind of financial planning. Without this, it's impossible for us to make any predictions. We don't have a glass ball. We cannot foresee the future. I can't even guess about the amounts we are talking about. So if nothing happens, if the situation remains as it is, business as usual, I understand that the cash flow will keep melting, yes or no? You speak about the cash, but we have cash and debt, net debt. And here we have a decrease, just like it was said, end of June to end of December, we have reduced our debt by more than PLN 1 billion. We simply had a lot of cash accumulated by the end of December, and we decided then to buy some CO2 with it too. But the other balancing element is the debt, and we should always look at the whole balance and not only focus on one side of the equation. Less debt means that the company has generated cash flow that is positive and has made more than it, it has spent. Now, the question about a price freezing. As regards freezing of prices, that's beyond us. Those decisions are made in the government. We are the receiver of the decisions, and it's very difficult to comment in any way on those solutions. But it seems that those freezing solutions are going to function till the end of the world. They are solutions for now, and it can be assumed that at some point we will return to market rules. But once again, we are not the creator of those decisions, the maker of those decisions. And the corporation loses on this or gains on this? Well, if we have compensation, depending on the structure of compensation on balance, at some point, we do not lose. That's a broader question about the impact on the market, but this is not something we are working on. We are the receivers of those solutions. That's it from me. Thank you. The last short questions, Puchalski, Santander. Two brief technical questions. Regarding offshore, what load factor do you assume in new assumptions? Because we know that the government shows 42, 43%, and I would like to find out what your assessment in your plans is. And the second point, recently, the topic of extending the capacity market is becoming more popular. Do you estimate it's going to be one to one? What expires? Will what be asked for or received? And what scale of annual capacity market are we thinking about or you are thinking about? And... Okay, so capacity market, not balancing market, but just the capacity market, which ends in July. Piotr, would you like to comment on the capacity market parameters? As for the capacity factor, that's one of the comments we present to the Minister of State Assets. And the Minister of State Assets forward it to the Ministry of Climate. Our capacity factor, assumed for determining the maximum price in the auction, is too high. We suggested a reduction of this capacity factor, and to be precise in giving the numbers, I would have to look at the details. Of course, we have our assumptions for Baltica, but those discussions in the public domain, the capacity factor. We will forward this information to you. We have an estimate. I cannot find the number which was assumed by the Minister of Climate and the number which we recommended should be assumed, but we will forward this information to you. That's not a very significant element when we talk about the difference of perspectives on the maximum auction price, 100 to 130 PLN. Generally, at the end of the second phase, the fact was about 44%, and that would translate between PLN 15 and PLN 20. So please, send me this information. And the second question as regards to the capacity market, if all units meet the criteria, we will apply for the payment. But, I'm not sure whether that is going to be one to one, where all units will have the possibility to apply for a new deal. Thank you. Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen, for your questions. Oh, I found the number. The capacity factor assumed for the second phase is 45.7%, in the calculation by the Ministry of Climate, that was 41%. This difference at 6.1% would be the difference in price, would correspond to the difference in price of about 17 PLN. Thank you. Once again, thank you very much for coming here and for spending time with us. I also would like to thank you to those who followed us online, and we invite you to the following conference next quarter.